Bear Protection Shotgun

Craig0ry said:
My wife's grandfather was an MP in the 60's/70's and he's mentioned having to dispatch a few bears with Remington's 870's and C1's when the bears got into empty and abanded buildings at a CFB down east. I dont remember what one. But he said the shotgun didn't have any issues.
My ex uncle works for DND and on an arctic trip they had shotguns for polar bear defense. It was the first time he had shot a gun(not at a bear they let the team all do some shooting) I remember he was fairly giddy about it.
So shotguns do hold a place in bear defense.
Click to expand...
Kanaduh.........

With the Geological Survey of Canada, the fly in 6 person camp had two long guns, a short barrel Winchester pump and a LE No. 5.

At Svaalbard, in polar bear habitat you HAVE to carry a rifle. Nost common is the venerable CRF, Mauser K98 in 8mm Mauser, an excellent choice as long as the users are properly trained.

Russia is the same, geos is remote work areas HAVE to carry a rifle on traverse. Mostly SKS with ball or a Moisin Nagant.
 
Gatehouse said:
If I was going to get a shotgun to carry for bear defense these days it would be this one. I would attach a light and a red dot to it.
Click to expand...
It's actually been a while since there was one of these threads. Anyway, I agree about the accessories but the light must be operated by a pressure switch and the red dot be a model that can be left on for weeks. Anytime there's a problem with a bear it's going to be a very high stress situation and fooling around turning things on isn't going to work out. In that regard it is also necessary to be very familiar with the gun itself so there is no short stroking or other failures to fire that can't be dealt with in a flash. Via muscle memory, not by trial and error. In other words, practice practice practice with the bear gun, treat it like a combat gun. Induce failures. Practice quick reloading. All are skills that will not be wasted in other situations.
 
Last edited:
ThatGuy said:
RMan, do you talk to everyone like this, or just on the internet? I don't get the impression that Suther is looking to pick on you...

Have a look at geologist's setup above. What is that rifle? 18-20" barrel? Maybe a Mauser or Mod 70 action? If so, CRF and box magazine? Powerful medium bore cartridge? An absolutely perfect bear setup. Probably couldn't have chosen something more appropriate.

At the same time, what's that setup cost? $2500? More? What does it take to be confident and competent with a rifle like that? I don't know the answers to those questions, exactly. But you can see how a 12ga for a few hundred bucks, that is easy to use/employ, that will give you adequate penetration (not great, but adequate enough) might be a great choice, all things considered.

You keep telling him that using a 12ga for bear defense is a "myth". What could that possibly mean? That it's never been done in the history of bears or shotguns? That if you try it, you'll turn into a pumpkin? That the bear will turn into a pumpkin, and still eat you anyway? I don't get it.

I would not choose a 12ga for bear defense in a world of all possible options under all possible conditions. But it's not inadequate. It will obviously work. It has been used successfully on countless occasions. It's cheap. It's easy. It versatile. It's reliable.

Give poor Suther a break.
Click to expand...
Everyone gets typed to in the manner in which they have earned.
There is not a care as to what he looking to do or not. As you mentioned, this is the internet, not “real” life.
You don’t get it, and you asked a question. So here is one answer, as there are many more, for sure:
The statement that shotguns for bear defence are a myth, means just that. If one put some thought behind it, and read the examples given in this thread, it should be easily figured out.
Many enforcement agencies many many years ago (and some still today, also in this thread) were/are issued shotguns as defensive and offensive weapons, primarily for two legged critters. It was the tool on hand for all sorts of reasons. High stress, easy to operate, familiar. Hence, when a bear needed to be dispatched, it was what was available. This made it into the news, etc. Again, read the posts in this thread. These are issued weapons. There isn’t a choice. Joe public reads that XYZ agent, constable, corporal, shot a bear with shotgun and thinks thats a good choice. So he makes his decision based on that info. The “pros” use it. It must be good.
That’s the myth.
Anyone that has dealt with bears on regular basis recommends a rifle, not a shotgun.
The real pros use a rifle.

As far as cost goes? Cost… really?
A fella feels nervous enough about a bear encounter, and it is serious enough to pack a firearm, but he wants to trust the outcome to cheapest possible solution available? Sounds about right? Lot of cheap rifle options available as well that will still outperform a shotgun.

Take everyone on this thread, and ask them what is the best option for killing a bear, shotgun or rifle. How many do you think would actually pick the shotgun?

Will a shotgun work? Sure. Will a rifle work better? Always. Shotguns are fraught with compromise, for all sorts of reasons. Size being one of them.
The thread is about using shotgun for bear defence. Not about bear defence itself. It’s still only April, so early for the annual bear defence thread rodeo.

And yes, poor Suther.

R.
 
Last edited:
Painkillers said:
Just how dead does this bear have to be exactly? Big hole through heart/lung vs. .30 hole through heart/lung/ far side rib?
Click to expand...
That always depends on the situation.
Did you see a bear and fire in its general direction to scare it off, and it worked?
Did you get charged and put one into the ground in front of the bear, and it ran off?
Or is the bear chewing on you and already has a shotgun slug just under its wet hide delivered via buddy and his shotgun.
How dead would you want it to be? Or, would you really just rather it be somewhere else?
There is also the element of which is better to pick your lotto numbers with, pen or pencil…
Again, only April. Bear defence thread rodeo is usually in May

R.
 
Last edited:
Painkillers said:
Just how dead does this bear have to be exactly? Big hole through heart/lung vs. .30 hole through heart/lung/ far side rib?
Click to expand...
It has to be dead "right now" where bear safety is concerned. This is the distinction that dictates what arm you carry and why a hunting round for grizzlies where you carefully pick your shot/range with a bear that may not even know you are there is an entirely different situation from when an attacking bear is forcing you to shoot it. In which case a central nervous system shot to the head or spine is your goal, not a hunter's heart/lung shot. A bear (or any dangerous adrenaline-spiking animal) typically has more than enough time to do you in before it succumbs itself to a heart/lung shot. Ideally you punch the cranium, and this the literature advises ideally requires a large bullet of high sectional density and tough construction with larger frontal area (flat or even cup nose) flying at moderate speeds. The moderate velocity and large frontal area reduce the odds of bullet deflection/fragmentation that high velocities and the spitzer/sniper-style bullets that are the norm today increase the odds of.
 
Big Bad said:
Bear biologists too.
Click to expand...
I was talking about this stuff with a bear biologist friend this past summer. He related an instance where a grizzly they were working on had to be shot. They were indeed carrying the said shotgun, hit the bear well and it did not have the desired result. I reckon some of the reasons why, as exhaustive studies show, spray has been statistically much more effective in resolving aggressive bear encounters than firearms have has a great deal to do with the haziness on most of this continent involving what a grizzly-stopping gun is. That and the fact that even those who carry one of the short list of arms recommended for bear safety are probably not practicing with them to the point of true competence. You have to think in the same terms for instance of the African professional hunter who has the right gun AND the developed reflexes through practice to stop a suddenly incoming beast in a split second reaction at what may be point-blank range. They do it, with regularity. A lot of folks in this country, conversely - i've had these discussions - will tell you that this can't be done, you're simply screwed. It probably can't given the guns most carry in griz country and their level of practice, no. Fashion some dummy rounds for regular practice and spend more cash than you thought you'd have to practicing live firing as well, off-hand, as fast as you can. (Practice even with your spray, fast firing from the belt for instance.) Commit it all to muscle memory. Then you may be prepared. Dangerous apex predators change the nature of the game. Most people in my experience depend on the odds alone for safety. They make no prep. They are right, they probably will be safe. I'm a good example (so far) - there is a well-used grizzly trail 70 feet from my house, bear densities around my place are some of the highest anywhere. I've had my share of encounters, none so far threatening. (The most recent was last week - 4 bears.) Those who are preparing for anything life-threatening are never preparing for the 98% chance nothing will happen. They are preparing for the 2% chance it will. Every season a certain small percentage of folks are selected by the odds for the real-deal, and a fair percentage of them will be helpless when it happens.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: DGY
thewoodsrunner said:
It has to be dead "right now" where bear safety is concerned. This is the distinction that dictates what arm you carry and why a hunting round for grizzlies where you carefully pick your shot/range with a bear that may not even know you are there is an entirely different situation from when an attacking bear is forcing you to shoot it. In which case a central nervous system shot to the head or spine is your goal, not a hunter's heart/lung shot. A bear (or any dangerous adrenaline-spiking animal) typically has more than enough time to do you in before it succumbs itself to a heart/lung shot. Ideally you punch the cranium, and this the literature advises ideally requires a large bullet of high sectional density and tough construction with larger frontal area (flat or even cup nose) flying at moderate speeds. The moderate velocity and large frontal area reduce the odds of bullet deflection/fragmentation that high velocities and the spitzer/sniper-style bullets that are the norm today increase the odds of.
Click to expand...
As a retired bear guard and trainer of bear guards of more than 40 years. The goal is to stop all forward motion ( break big bones ) if it can't move it can't hurt anyone.Then as quickly as possible to end it ( kill it ) just my experience from working in the field. they are not to hard to kill but can be hard to stop. A rifle of 3006 or bigger with a well constructed bullet will do the job if the person behind it does theirs.
 
^^^ 'Stop all forward motion,' yes. I don't go the the Arctic or the west coast (anymore), so when I envision a bear problem, it isn't a charging mother griz but rather the much more common one of a black bear that hasn't read the books that say we aren't one of their prey species (once you get north of cottage country, that's said to be about one black bear in 1000). 5 or 6 rounds of buck or slugs is going to take one of those bears anytime, surely, provided you can deliver them.
 
pounder said:
As a retired bear guard and trainer of bear guards of more than 40 years. The goal is to stop all forward motion ( break big bones ) if it can't move it can't hurt anyone.Then as quickly as possible to end it ( kill it ) just my experience from working in the field. they are not to hard to kill but can be hard to stop. A rifle of 3006 or bigger with a well constructed bullet will do the job if the person behind it does theirs.
Click to expand...
There is an interesting article in the April 2014 issue of Sports Afield by celebrated Alaskan bear guide Phil Shoemaker. It's all about his custom
.30-06 rifle and the idea that this is enough gun for a grizzly (albeit in this case the mammoth coastal examples.) Phil chose a puzzling story in the article to illustrate the claim. He was in a hunting situation (not an attack) and it took him a full six rounds from this gun, 220 grain Nosler partitions, to put the bear down. If this was intended to convince the reader that a .30-06 loaded with 220's is enough gun for the great bears (i.e: bears excluding the blacks, which really aren't hard to kill by comparison, nor so anywhere near so likely to be a threat), it convinced me of quite the opposite. It convinced me that in addition to the inhumanity of the situation he was being damned reckless and that he was lucky to be alive. Imagine that same bear adrenaline-driven in a charge. He'd have been toast somewhere soon after the first shot. I have carried a .30-06 loaded with 220's during late deer season when most bears are at their dens and i am tired of lugging my 9.5 pound Mauser .375 H&H. I am never entirely confident with the thing. Some of our inland griz in these parts are well over 700 pounds at spring emergence. I think if i were carrying the ought six in the case of a charge i'd just resort to the spray if i didn't feel i could pick my shot with all assurance. Especially after reading Shoemaker's account. Sure, you might get lucky and stop one with a .270 for that matter. Would you stake your life on it? This year the very last day of season i got out of my truck, walked six paces toward the basin i intended to hunt, and there were the steaming-fresh tracks of a huge boar griz in the snow. I hunted somewhere else and reconsidered yet again carrying a lighter gun than my .375, regardless of how late in the year.
 
Phil does like a good story. A sample of one, isn’t much of a sample, especially given the amount of bears that have fallen to his rifle.
Just imagine how much better he would have fared if he was shooting a shotgun?
The best bear defence tool is between your ears, not in your hands. One should feel confident with whatever rifle he has. If not, then most times, there is always the option to be somewhere else.
R.
 
The thing is .... a pump shotgun is cheap ... doesn't cost much ... and it does the job ... and does not need much training.

Are there better tools? Sure .... there are always better and more expensive tools .... but what is the lowest cost tool ... lowest investment in time .... and that does the job reliably?

A pump 12ga shotgun will do the job!
 
0faustus0 said:
The thing is .... a pump shotgun is cheap ... doesn't cost much ... and it does the job ... and does not need much training.

Are there better tools? Sure .... there are always better and more expensive tools .... but what is the lowest cost tool ... lowest investment in time .... and that does the job reliably?

A pump 12ga shotgun will do the job!
Click to expand...
There should be a massive discussion about whether it does the job or not.
Very debatable for sure.
Again, the guys that do it, certainly don’t seem to feel that it is.
Also don’t think too many thinking fellers would take a bet on the lowest cost option over a higher probability of success.

Again, if it’s a serious enough threat to pack a firearm for, should the cost really be a consideration? Or should the better tool get the nod?

R.
 
thewoodsrunner said:
There is an interesting article in the April 2014 issue of Sports Afield by celebrated Alaskan bear guide Phil Shoemaker. It's all about his custom
.30-06 rifle and the idea that this is enough gun for a grizzly (albeit in this case the mammoth coastal examples.) Phil chose a puzzling story in the article to illustrate the claim. He was in a hunting situation (not an attack) and it took him a full six rounds from this gun, 220 grain Nosler partitions, to put the bear down. If this was intended to convince the reader that a .30-06 loaded with 220's is enough gun for the great bears (i.e: bears excluding the blacks, which really aren't hard to kill by comparison, nor so anywhere near so likely to be a threat), it convinced me of quite the opposite. It convinced me that in addition to the inhumanity of the situation he was being damned reckless and that he was lucky to be alive. Imagine that same bear adrenaline-driven in a charge. He'd have been toast somewhere soon after the first shot. I have carried a .30-06 loaded with 220's during late deer season when most bears are at their dens and i am tired of lugging my 9.5 pound Mauser .375 H&H. I am never entirely confident with the thing. Some of our inland griz in these parts are well over 700 pounds at spring emergence. I think if i were carrying the ought six in the case of a charge i'd just resort to the spray if i didn't feel i could pick my shot with all assurance. Especially after reading Shoemaker's account. Sure, you might get lucky and stop one with a .270 for that matter. Would you stake your life on it? This year the very last day of season i got out of my truck, walked six paces toward the basin i intended to hunt, and there were the steaming-fresh tracks of a huge boar griz in the snow. I hunted somewhere else and reconsidered yet again carrying a lighter gun than my .375, regardless of how late in the year.
Click to expand...
Can you link the article? As I recall it he was stopping a wounded bear that was charging. Was it the Lon Paul 06?
 
0faustus0 said:
The thing is .... a pump shotgun is cheap ... doesn't cost much ... and it does the job ... and does not need much training.

Are there better tools? Sure .... there are always better and more expensive tools .... but what is the lowest cost tool ... lowest investment in time .... and that does the job reliably?

A pump 12ga shotgun will do the job!
Click to expand...
It’s your money or your life. Seems like a stupid trade.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom